Tweet 12

ISSUE HOME

Introduction: Critical Blogging inArchaeologyColleen Morgan and Judith Winters

Department of Archaeology, University of York, UK.

colleen.morgan@york.ac.uk http://orcid.org/0000­0001­6907­5535

judith.winters@york.ac.uk http://orcid.org/0000­0002­3420­2685

Cite this as: Morgan, C. and Winters, J. (2015). Introduction: Critical Blogging in Archaeology. InternetArchaeology, (39). http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.11

This special volume of Internet Archaeology collects the leading voices of bloggingin archaeology to provide a critical examination of informal, online self­publication.This collection of articles is one result of over a decade of digital communication;the confluence of a conversation that grew from a few lonely voices to atumultuous cacophony. Even so, blogging has had very little scrutiny in widerarchaeological publication (but see Caraher 2008; Kansa and Deblauwe 2011). Thefirst movement toward this volume was the Blogging Archaeology session at the2011 Society for American Archaeology meetings, accompanied by a "BlogCarnival," a groundbreaking effort to foment reflexive discussion prior to theconference. Several participants of this original session and blog carnival havecontributed to this volume; these articles are intermingled with perspectives fromcontributors who have started blogging in the intervening time, and with peerreview comments from archaeologists who have blogged for a long time, and fromthose who do not blog at all.

The topics covered within these ten articles range from network analyses to videoblogging, from pedagogical approaches to explicitly political interventions, andfrom artistic expression to the telegraph­modality of blogging contained in 140characters or less. The diversity of these topics demonstrate the remarkable rangeof expression available to the authors of the digital short form; this onlinecommunity of practice has previously been described as "noisy, multilingual andmulti­authored, and sadly often unarchivable or incompatible with traditionalmeans of archaeological publication, there is so much colour and life in our digital

3Like

village that it defies boundaries and descriptions" (Morganand Eve 2012, 522).

In this volume, we have attempted to capture and presentthis colourful digital noise through the more traditionalform of peer reviewed journal publication. To meaningfullycircumscribe archaeological blogging, we present thisintroduction as a form of paradata—details about thedecisions that went into forming this volume. Theseparadata include a brief background of blogging inarchaeology, the context and connectivity of the articlesin this volume, and the contingencies of the experimentalpublication employed by Internet Archaeology in includingopen peer review and the addition of a comments sectionthat will be archived with the original articles. Finally, weinvite you to join this conversation, through commentingon these articles, engaging with #CritBlogArch on Twitter, or starting your ownblog.

Background

Archaeologists have had a long engagement with the internet, occupying the firstpublic newsgroups on usenet (Bathurst 2000), learning HTML to build basicwebsites and experimenting with hypertext (McDavid 2002; 2004; Joyce andTringham 2007), editing archaeology entries on Wikipedia, and engaging withsocial networking sites to promote archaeological interests (Perry and Beale 2015).There is a growing emphasis on digital literacy at universities with archaeologydegree programs and a marked increase in conference papers, dissertations, andjournal articles addressing various aspects of digital media and archaeology. Self­publishing through social media and blogging has significantly diversified onlineperspectives regarding archaeology. To provide the context for archaeologicalexpression online, a summary of the forms of archaeological blogging follows.

Since the first instances of blogging 30 years ago (Blood 2000), the short form ofdigital self­publication has split, metamorphosed and adapted to wildly differentuses. Blogging, writing short entries within the framework of a simple onlinepublishing scheme, is a simplified descendent of the personal web page that

Meyers Emery & Killgrove Blogging in Bioarchaeology, open peer review by myself + @sdhaddow intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue3… #openaccess #CritBlogArch

Retweeted by Robyn Inglis

Lisa-Marie Shillito @ArchaeologyLisa

Expand

Meyers Emery & Killgrove Blogging in Bioarchaeology, open peer review by myself + @sdhaddow intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue3… #openaccess #CritBlogArch

Lisa-Marie Shillito @ArchaeologyLisa

29 May

29 May

#CritBlogArch

Tweet #CritBlogArch

requires no knowledge of HTML or domain registration (Lister et al. 2009, 268).While the form originated in text and hypertext, there is an incredible diversity ofblog form and subject matter. Though still incunabular and unstable as a creativegenre, blogging remains a means to instantly self­publish content—perhaps thisbeing the defining characteristic of a rapidly fracturing format. Some blogsincorporate photographs or graphics as a means to illustrate concepts containedwithin the written body of the work, though some have eschewed words entirely,containing only visuals as a defining trait (Ifantidis 2015).

Currently, the main text­based platforms are Wordpress, Tumblr, and Blogspot, allof which have eclipsed the once popular LiveJournal. Within these word­basedplatforms lies the ability to embed links and multimedia, augmenting andillustrating the prose. Multimedia­based websites such as Flickr and Instagram areprimarily driven by images. Originally conceived as a personal image archive,users of Flickr see it as "a social site, a place for sharing images" (Van House2007, 2719). Many users of Flickr see their uploads as a form of self­expressioncontributing to a narrative, similar to text­based blogging. Recently, Instagram haseclipsed Flickr, offering instant lomographic/retro filters for photographs taken onsmart phones. While many of the photographers using Flickr have DSLRs andtherefore take the time to digitally alter the images using software such asPhotoshop, Instagram allows instantaneous, in­phone editing. Another example ofmultimedia blogging is the vlog or video blogs that focus entirely on the videoperformance of the blog author, and these can be either integrated into a blogformat with other entries that are textually based, or stand alone as hosted onYoutube (Tong et al. 2015).

A variation on the short form can be found in micro­blogging on sharing platformssuch as Tumblr, Pinterest, Twitter, and Facebook as well as a myriad of otherwebsites and phone applications. Tumblr bridges the amorphous divide betweentext and photo blogs in microblogging form. While longer text­based writing iscertainly present, Tumblr specialises in gathering and remixing digital ephemera.Similar to Instagram, contributions are intermixed with those of friends orcontacts, creating a larger collective narrative. Dissimilar to Instagram, much ofthe content on Tumblr are found objects: images, text, videos and music that arenot created by the user collecting the digital objects. Users can "reblog" othercontent, or repost content created or found by other users with no threats ofcopyright infringement or ownership. Reblogging posts is flattering to the original

user, and reblogging also allows the person who reblogs the content to furthercomment on the content. Users can also "heart" content, which shows approval,but does not redistribute the original content. This amounts to a constant,manicured stream of digital content determined by the user's contacts and theuser herself, who curates different content providing contacts. Pinterest operatessimilarly, though with a different layout, curation style and audience.

A more ubiquitous and stripped down version of the short form, or micro­blogging,is Twitter (Richardson 2014; 2015). Seen progressively as a social, commercial,academic, then political venue, Twitter relies on 140 word updates, but allowslinking to images and to other websites and "re­tweeting" of content.Conversations, comments and themes are organized by hashtag, which can beshared and commented upon generally by any Twitter user. Within thearchaeological community Twitter has been used as a quasi­outreach basedplatform, with both announcements regarding archaeological news andconferences, but also as a conversational tool between archaeologists interested indigital media.

Finally, combining many traits of various publishing platforms, social networkingsites such as Facebook and Google Plus combine micro­blogging and photo­blogstogether into a "stream" wherein users can view their content alongside those oftheir contacts. While classic forms of blogging are still popular and can beintegrated into these social networking sites, the amount of people using Facebookeclipses all other forms of online usage. As published by the Pew Internet ResearchCenter 71% of online adult Americans used Facebook in 2014, and 52% of onlineAmerican adults now use two or more social media sites (Duggan et al. 2015).Using a social networking platform, archaeologists can combine outreach effortswith personal online presence, while reaching a broad audience.

Figure 1: Archaeology blogs mentioned by CaraherFigure 2: Blogs mentioned in Middle Savagery

William Caraher (2008) marks the beginning of archaeological blogging in the late1990s, with the later "great expansion of archaeological blogs" beginning in 2002.In the decade since that time, archaeological blogs have come and gone,multiplied and diversified, many experimenting with a range of formats. Of the 41(non­institutional) archaeology blogs Caraher mentions in his article, 51% are stillactive (Figure 1). Caraher was oriented toward blogs exploring Classical andMediterranean Archaeology; roughly at the same time in 2008, Middle Savagerylinked to 31 Americanist blogs, 32% of which are still active (Figure 2). Law andMorgan (2014) documented a similar attrition of archaeology sites hosted on thenow­defunct Geocities. In their submission to this volume, Caraher and Reinhard(2015) discuss the affordances of archaeological blogging at length, with thehindsight of seven years.

Context and Connectivity of Critical Blogging in Archaeology

In 2011, Colleen Morgan's blog, Middle Savagery, hosted a month­long bloggingcarnival that solicited contributions to weekly questions in anticipation of theBlogging Archaeology session at the Society for American Archaeology inSacramento, California. During this blogging carnival, archaeologists contributed todiscussions regarding best practices for digital archaeologists, not just in dataformats and correct key word annotations, but the ethics and politics of being apublic intellectual. The blogging carnival brought together archaeological bloggersof all kinds, with contributions from Twitter and commentary on Facebook. Thissession benefitted from a community (albeit perhaps one of weak ties discussed inRichardson 2015) cultivated during Morgan's long­term, diverse practice in onlinedigital archaeology publication with blogs including the previously mentionedMiddle Savagery, originally established on LiveJournal in 2004, as well as TheOrigins of Doha and Then Dig, the curation of a Flickr community titledArchaeology in Action, participation in Twitter including an early "live­tweeting" ofan archaeological conference, the Theoretical Archaeology Group meetings atStanford (Morgan 2009), and various other social networking initiatives.

This involvement with online expression of archaeological ideas through variousmedia is an extension of Morgan's (2012) research on tracing the objectbiographies of digital media as archaeological artifacts. This research situatesblogs as an assemblage of digital artifacts that can to be understood as activemembers of a network of interpretive meaning (see also Hopkins 2013). This

active membership in the construction of meaning must be emphasized as digitalobjects are often imagined to be ephemeral or insubstantial, existing somewhere"in the cloud." In this we move away from a text/narrative based analysis ofblogging content to the understanding that bloggers are creating digitalassemblages, simulacra of archaeological investigations, or, more generally, thelived experience and performance of being an archaeologist. Understood as suchwe can incorporate Lave and Wenger's (1991) situated learning as a primaryprinciple of blogging. Many academic archaeologists use blogging for teaching(Brock and Goldstein 2015; Perry 2015), and as students are required to createdigital assemblages that interpret archaeology, they are engaging in legitimateparticipation in online dialogue, becoming a member of a community of practice.The archaeology blogging community has grown in this way, with participationfrom both the academic and professional sector to create a unique synthesis of along­standing divide within archaeology. Legitimate participation is not necessarilytied to professional standing, but by contributions to the larger conversation.

This volume, Critical Blogging in Archaeology, brings together reflections on thesedigital assemblages of legitimate participation in online archaeological dialogue inthe form of peer­reviewed articles on current archaeological blogging. After morethan a decade of experimental, informal publication, bringing this ongoingconversation into a more traditional format would seem counterintuitive, yet it isan important step toward making the impact of these alternate forms ofpublication visible. As Sara Perry (2015) points out, archaeologists have beenexperimenting with publication styles since early antiquarian literature. Heridentification of blogging as a continuum of practice, and its relevance to allaspects of disciplinary theory and method, position blogging as one means toinsert ourselves into "future world­making" (2015, section 2).

Even as Perry defends her use of blogging to colleagues, Caraher and Reinhard(2015) note that blogging is a dynamic medium, and has changed radically in theseven years since Caraher wrote his first evaluation of archaeological blogging(2008). Caraher and Reinhard (2015) discuss the current affordances of bloggingas a publication format and as a "community of practice," encompassing a networkof shared expectations (2015). Many of their suggestions, such as open peerreview and a comments section on articles have been incorporated into thisvolume. In their peer comments, Birch (2015) and Smith (2015) reflect on theirexperiences with publication and blogging. While Birch (2015) finds that blogging

broadens access and makes archaeological research processes more transparentand inclusive and Smith (2015), while apparently disconnected from a bloggingcommunity, finds the visibility and public education aspects of blogging importantfor wider access to archaeological research. Richardson (2015) also queries theconcept of communities in social media, with a focus on Twitter. The onlineperformance of an "archaeological self" is limited within Twitter and thedevelopment of personal relationships on the platform is a longer process(Richardson 2015). Beale's (2015) comment suggests examining Facebook groupsthat have no formal or institutional ties and that the affordances of technologyenables digital connections that are difficult to make in a physical community.Finally, Graham's (2015) network analysis of archaeological blogging suggests thatinstead of blogs becoming a meaningful middle ground between institutionalresearch and an interested public, they have been sidelined for collectiveresources, mainly Wikipedia.

Beyond their use within publication and community building, blogging has beenused to identify political issues within archaeology and to advocate for change.Hardy (2015) discusses precarity in archaeological labour in Turkey, Italy, and theUnited Kingdom and the online mobilization of resistance. Online activismsignificantly augments other forms of protest, though it may leave the protestormore open to reprisals (Hardy 2015). Mullins (2015) highlights the importance ofbloggers' voices for "the imagination of transformation, justice, and community incontemporary heritage labour" and calls for tenured academics to ally themselveswith vulnerable colleagues. Lambert and Yates (2015) discuss the role of socialmedia in the illicit trade in antiquities, and, echoing Hardy, find blogging aboutillegal activities leaves them personally open to attack. In his response Silberman(2015) acknowledge the vulnerability of early career researchers, but imploresbloggers to have the courage not to self­censor, as "blogging is an ideal mediumfor a public intellectual in an era that needs much more public debate."

The idea of blogging as personal expression and the reconfiguration of theprofessional self in an informal, yet broadly public venue shaped many of thearticles in this volume. Meyers Emery and Killgrove (2015) and Lambert and Yates(2015) note that blogging has been instrumental to their academic development,identify gendered aspects in online communication and provide advice to otherswho would take up blogging. Yet Graham (2015) identifies the difficulties facingnew bloggers in being recognized as signal rather than noise. Caraher and

Reinhard (2015) also cite the "discoverability" problem and recommend micro­blogging to support the blog, or allying with a professional organization. Even so,Perry's students found blogging to be "liberating, creative craftwork" that wasimpactful in their professionalization and their understanding of archaeology aswell as an intimate, personally resonant practice (2015). In her comment, Battle­Baptiste (2015) identifies herself as a historical archaeologist, a blogger, a womanof African descent living in the United States, a tenured professor of archaeology,and a wife and mother. In this, Battle­Baptiste reveals the personal commingledwith the professional and the political, and the ways that finds expression withinblogging.

Perry's (2015) use of blogging as part of an engaged, creative pedagogy is alsoexplored by Brock and Goldstein (2015) who brought social media to the MichiganState University (MSU) Campus Archaeology Program (CAP) in 2010­2011. Brockand Goldstein note that the objectives for CAP blogging were first pedagogical,then as public outreach. In contrast, Tong et al. (2015) explored video blogging orvlogging as public outreach for the Project Eliseg excavation. This vlog was used toovercome public outreach challenges such as the inaccessibility of the site topeople with mobility issues, and a population that were resistant to archaeologicalinterpretations of the Pillar of Eliseg. These vlogs join a host of other print anddigital media engagements, yet the video format of the vlog was adopted toprovide relevant and comprehensive information about the project to theinterested public with a relatively low digital literacy requirement. These vlogsrange between the expository and direct testimonial genres of archaeologicalfilmmaking (Morgan 2014). In his response, Marwick (2015) identifies the twoprimary audiences for the Project Eliseg videos, that of interested members of thepublic with no knowledge of archaeology, and archaeologists, sometimes the samearchaeologists conducting the excavations. This is a critical point for online publicoutreach in archaeology: these media are the narratives that we tell to the publicabout the past, and are at the same time the stories that we tell within theprofession about ourselves. Each digital media assemblage lies within this duality,and this is evident in the photo essay by Fotis Ifantidis (2015), and the responsesby Jesse Stephen (2015) and Steven Ashby (2015).

Ifantidis' photo essay (2015) is an excellent example of the polyvalence of digitalmedia; he includes a photo of a photo in a book, screenshots of his Flickr account,Instagram, and Facebook accounts, a scan, and displaced and chopped up digital

photos that respond to his long­running photo­blog, Visualizing Neolithic, andaccompanying Archaeographies photobook (Ifantidis 2013). This essay is arguablythe most transgressive of the articles assembled in this volume, occupying a spacebetween formal, peer­reviewed articles and blogging. When discussing the essaywith the reviewers, I (Morgan) realized that peer review of a photo essay could beperformed with photographs, and Stephen and Ashby have responded remarkablyto this request. With the affordances of open peer review, more such responses,even media responses to text­based articles may be possible in the future.

Experimental Peer Review

The decision to publish in Internet Archaeology was, as stated, a directintervention to scrutinize blogging within the realm of formal, peer reviewedacademic publishing. Yet this decision was also informed by the flexible,experimental nature of Internet Archaeology and the willingness of Judith Winters,the editor­in­chief to work with the authors and peer reviewers toward a new kindof publication in archaeology. Through a series of meetings, Colleen Morgan andJudith Winters discussed the possibilities of a dedicated issue for blogging, anddiscussed several features which may seem minor to the reader, but were integralto keeping the spirit of open, critical conversation throughout the range ofcollected articles. These features include: a comment section for each page, to bearchived alongside the article; the inclusion of a Twitter feed with a dedicatedhashtag #CritBlogArch to collect discussion about the issue, and open peer reviewfor the articles.

Archiving the social media discussion surrounding each of the articles, albeit withina set timeframe of six months (a decision taken for pragmatic reasons but furthersnapshots may be made if the conversation continues), and collecting thecomments that each of the articles may attract, throws open the discussion aroundblogging in archaeology. While the articles are very carefully written and peerreviewed, each of these will perform as the nexus within a broader corpus; whilethis is certainly true within more traditional publications, this will be verytransparently true and preserved alongside the articles to reveal this particularmoment in digital archaeology. These articles are the beginning of a conversation,and the comments and tweets serve as supplementary peer review.

Perhaps the most contentious aspect of this dedicated issue was the decision to

implement open peer review. Open peer review seemed an obvious choice; afterexperimenting with it for several years on the peer reviewed archaeology blogThen Dig, Morgan found that open peer review encouraged civility, transparency ofprocess and created meaningful connections and conversation between authorsand reviewers. It is an iterative process, delivering the 'stamp of approval' andimprovements to articles in a more transparent way. Additionally, in a relativelysmall cohort of blogging archaeologists, anonymous peer review would beunrealistic, and double­blind peer review impossible. It can be hard to find themost appropriate, available, and reliable reviewers at the best of times and thiscan slow down the publication process. So we were drawn to experimentation withopen review for practical and efficiency reasons too (although the process isalways only as fast as the slowest reviewer and delays are magnified when dealingwith a themed issue). However leaving peer review to the community can allowthe publication editor to focus on the other necessary accessibility, archival andtechnical issues.

In practice, open peer review does not produce significant changes in the quality ofpeer review or the time interval for publication after submission, but it does causereviewers to decline to review articles (van Rooyen et al. 1999). This latter effectcan be seen in the paucity of reviewers for some of the articles. Although mostreviewers responded favourably to our requests, some were reluctant to abandonthe traditional system and were uncomfortable with committing to a public(perhaps critical) review. Furthermore, this was a first for many of the authors andthe reviewers, who had significant reservations and mixed responses to theformat. As is apparent from the articles, some authors chose to incorporate thesuggestions of the reviewer, perhaps making the reviewer's comment seem oddlyout of place. Some responded directly to the reviewer, either within the body oftheir own article, or as a stand­alone piece. We left this decision to the individualauthors. The citable peer comments (each with their own DOI) and readercomments are collated in a single file so that threads and themes can be moreeasily followed and we welcome discussion of individual reactions to the open peerreview process in the comments.

Open peer review may not be suitable for all types of content, but where it isemployed, it will force the editorial filter in the initial stages to be more exacting. I(Winters) am inclined to view it as an option for future content rather than awholesale replacement of more traditional peer review (despite its imperfections).

But in this case, working with authors who hone their writing craft more frequentlythan most through their blogs, it was an obvious choice.

Conclusions

Blogging occupies an interesting, sometimes disruptive position in current andfuture archaeological dialogue. Attending to the materiality and affordances of thisdigital medium, understanding it as an assemblage, and encouraging participationin communities of practice will make blogging a critical tool in scholarlycommunication in archaeology. The articles in this volume provide a holisticperspective to a rapidly changing media landscape. The authors have been chosenboth for their particular mastery of an aspect of blogging within archaeology andfor their familiarity with a theory­based approach to communicating with onlinestakeholders. Finally, while we have chosen a format that will be familiar to thoseprimarily involved with scholarly publishing, we hope to show the affordances ofblogging, and push archaeological publishing toward accepting multimediapublications and opening conversation to a broader online public. With thisdedicated issue, we provide a critical engagement with emerging forms ofdissemination and frame future online discourse about archaeology.

AcknowledgementsColleen Morgan would like to thank Judith Winters for her extreme patience anddedication toward bringing this issue to life. Morgan would also like to thank all ofthe authors and the peer reviewers who were willing to experiment with thisformat, and all of those who have inspired her to keep blogging. This themed issuewas made possible by the generous support of the Department of Archaeology,University of York along with some additional contributions via authors.

COMMENT

BibliographyAshby, S.P. 2015 'Peer Comment', Internet Archaeology 39.http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.10.com2

Bathurst, R.R. 2000 'Keeping up with the Jones's: Addressing aspects of

archaeological representation', Nexus 14, 1­10.https://journals.mcmaster.ca/nexus/article/view/165

Battle­Baptiste, W. 2015 'Peer Comment', Internet Archaeology 39,http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.9.com1

Beale, G. 2015 'Peer Comment', Internet Archaeology 39http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.2.com1

Duggan, M., Ellison, N.B., Lampe, C., Lenhart, A. and Madden, M. 'Social MediaUpdate 2014', Pew Research Center, January 2015.http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/09/social­media­update­2014/ [Lastaccessed: 27 May 2015]

Pilaar Birch, S.E. 2015 'Peer Comment', Internet Archaeology 39.http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.7.com1

Blood, R. 2000 'Weblogs: A History and Perspective', Rebecca's Pocket, 7September 2000. http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/weblog_history.html

Brock, T, P. and Goldstein, L. 2015 'Blogging the Field School: Teaching DigitalPublic Archaeology', Internet Archaeology 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.8

Caraher W.R. 2008 'Blogging archaeology and the archaeology of blogging',Archaeology, Online Features.http://archive.archaeology.org/online/features/blogs/

Caraher, W.R., Reinhard, A. 2015 'From Blogs to Books: Blogging as Community,Practice, and Platform', Internet Archaeology 39.http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.7

Graham, S. 2015 'Mapping the Structure of the Archaeological Web', InternetArchaeology 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.1

Hardy, S. 2015 'Resistance to Precarious Archaeological Labour', InternetArchaeology 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.4

Hopkins, J. 2013 'Assembling affordances: towards a theory of relationalaffordances' Selected Papers of Internet Research ir14.http://spir.aoir.org/index.php/spir/article/view/783

Ifantidis, F. 2013 Archaeographies: Excavating Neolithic Dispilio, Oxford:Archaeopress.

Ifantidis, F. 2015 'A Figurine and its Scale, a Scale and its Figurine', InternetArchaeology 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.10

Joyce, R.A., and Tringham, R.E. 2007 'Feminist adventures in hypertext', Journalof Archaeological Method and Theory 14(3), 328­358.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10816­007­9036­2

Kansa, S.W and Deblauwe, F. 2011 'User­Generated Content in Zooarchaeology:Exploring the 'Middle Space' of Scholarly Communication' in Eric C. Kansa, SarahWhitcher Kansa and Ethan Watrall (eds) Archaeology 2.0: New Approaches toCommunication and Collaboration, Cotsen Digital Archaeology, 1, Cotsen Instituteof Archaeology Press, Los Angeles. 185­206.http://escholarship.org/uc/item/1r6137tb#page­201

Lambert, M. and Yates, D. 2015 'Crime, Controversy and the Comments Section:Discussing archaeological looting, trafficking, and the illicit antiquities tradeonline', Internet Archaeology 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.6

Lave, J. and Wenger, E. 1991 Situated learning: Legitimate peripheralparticipation, Cambridge University Press.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355

Law, M. and Morgan, C. 2014 'The archaeology of digital abandonment: Onlinesustainability and archaeological sites', Present Pasts 6(1), 1­0.http://dx.doi.org/10.5334/pp.58

Lister, M., Dovey, J., Giddings, S., Grant, I. and Kelly, K. 2009 New media: Acritical introduction, 2nd edition, Routledge.

Marwick, B. 2015 'Peer Comment: Films, digs and death: a review of the ProjectEliseg videos', Internet Archaeology 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.3.com3

McDavid, C. 2002 'Archaeologies that hurt; descendants that matter: A pragmaticapproach to collaboration in the public interpretation of african­americanarchaeology', World Archaeology 34(2), 303­314.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0043824022000007116

McDavid, C. 2004 'Towards a More Democratic Archaeology? The Internet andPublic Archaeological Practice' in N. Merriman (ed) Public Archaeology, Routledge,London. 159­187.

Meyers Emery, K., Killgrove, K. 2015 'Bones, Bodies, and Blogs: Outreach andEngagement in Bioarchaeology', Internet Archaeology 39.http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.5

Morgan, C. 2009 'Twittering TAG (Theoretical Archaeology Group) Stanford 2009',Archaeolog, May 2009, http://web.stanford.edu/dept/archaeology/cgi­bin/archaeolog/?p=251 [Last accessed 20 May 2015].

Morgan, C. 2012 Emancipatory Digital Archaeology, PhD thesis, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.

Morgan, C. 2014 'Archaeology and the Moving Image', Public Archaeology 13(4),323­344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/1465518715Z.00000000077

Morgan, C. and Eve, S. 2012 'DIY and digital archaeology: What are you doing toparticipate?', World Archaeology 44(4), 521­537.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2012.741810

Mullins, P. 2015 'Peer Comment', Internet Archaeology 39.http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.4.com1

Perry, S. 2015 'Changing the Way Archaeologists Work: blogging and thedevelopment of expertise', Internet Archaeology 39.http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.9

Perry, S. and Beale, N. 2015 'The Social Web and Archaeology’s Restructuring:Impact, Exploitation, Disciplinary Change', Open Archaeology 1(1).http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/opar­2015­0009

Richardson, L­J. 2014 Public Archaeology in a Digital Age, PhD Thesis: UniversityCollege London.

Richardson, L­J. 2015 'Micro­blogging and Online Community', InternetArchaeology 39. http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.2

Silberman, N.A. 2015 'Peer Comment', Internet Archaeology 39.

http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.6.com1

Smith, M.E. 2015 'Peer Comment', Internet Archaeology 39,http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.7.com2

Stephen, J.W. 2015 'Peer Comment', Internet Archaeology 39.http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.10.com1

Tong, J., Evans, S., Williams, H., Edwards, N., Robinson, G. 2015 'Vlog to Death:Project Eliseg's Video­Blogging', Internet Archaeology 39.http://dx.doi.org/10.11141/ia.39.3

Van House, N.A. 2007 'Flickr and public image­sharing: Distant closeness andphoto exhibition', Ext. Abstracts CHI 2007, New York: ACM Press.http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1241068

Van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N. and Smith, R. 1999 'Effect of openpeer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: arandomised trial', BMJ: British Medical Journal 318(7175), 23–27.http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23

ISSUE HOME

© Author(s). Except where otherwise noted, content from this work may be used under the terms ofthe Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution,and reproduction in any medium, provided that attribution to the author(s), the title of the work, theInternet Archaeology journal and the relevant URL/DOI is given.

University of York legal statements

File last updated: Mon May 18 2015